Rafael Lira Cupa v. Organicgirl, LLC

Rafael Lira Cupa v. Organicgirl, LLC

Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action and PAGA Settlement

Hearing Date: May 8, 2026 (continued from March 27, 2026)

PARTIES TO APPEAR.

On March 28, 2026, this Court continued the hearing on Plaintiff Rafael Lira Cupa’s (“Plaintiff”) motion for preliminary approval of the class action and PAGA settlement to allow Plaintiff to file supplemental papers addressing various issues. After reviewing the Plaintiffs’ supplemental filing on April 24, 2026, the motion is GRANTED, subject to the conditions listed below. The case is scheduled for a Motion for Final Approval of the Class Action Settlement on November 13, 2026, at 8:30 a.m., unless the parties agree to a different date. Any additional filings addressing the revisions must be submitted and served 14 days before the hearing.

Preliminarily, it appears that the settlement between Plaintiff and Defendant Organicgirl, LLC is fundamentally fair, adequate, and reasonable. [Dunk v. Ford Motor Co. (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 1794, 1801-1802.] Plaintiff, in his supplemental papers, has made a sufficient showing for a preliminary approval of the settlement. However, as explained in more detail below, the Court requires clarification and, if appropriate, further revisions.

The End Date of the PAGA and Class Period. The Court is uncertain about the exact end date of the PAGA and Class period. In Plaintiff’s initial filings, this date was listed as “December 31, 2024.” [See Matavosian Decl. at ¶ 13; Joint Stipulation of Settlement and Release of Class and PAGA Actions (“Settlement”), Exh. 2 to Matavosian Decl. at ¶¶ 1.6, 1.27, and attached Exh. A (Notice of Proposed Class Action Settlement (“Notice”)) at ¶¶ 1, 3.] However, the Supplemental Declaration of Selena Matavosian states the end date as “June 10, 2024.” [See Supp.

Matavosian Decl. at ¶ 8.] This contradicts the initial filings and the Notice attached to Amendment No. 1 to the Settlement (“Amendment 1”). [See id. at ¶ 4 and attached Exh. 2 (see Exh. A to Exh. 2).] If the parties have agreed to change the end date to June 10, 2024, based on the escalator clause or another reason, then the Notice, Settlement, and Amendment 1 should be updated accordingly.

Section 1.15 of Amendment 1. The Court acknowledges and has no objection to the parties’ designation of Bay Area Legal Aid as the cy pres beneficiary under Code of Civil Procedure section 384. However, Section 1.15 of Amendment 1 states that “The Parties agree that [section 384] does not apply to this Settlement and the amount of any uncashed checks will be transmitted to the cy pres recipient, Bay Area Legal Aid...” [Exh. 2 to Supp. Matavosian Decl. (emphasis added).] Since section 384 does apply here, the parties should revise section

1.15 of Amendment 1 and any other document containing similar language accordingly. In other words, the phrase “Code of Civil Procedure section 384 does not apply to this Settlement” should be stricken from the definition of the Gross Settlement Amount.

Representative Service Fee. Plaintiff continues to request a $10,000 enhancement award. The requested amount exceeds the typical $5,000 enhancement award granted in Monterey County. At this stage of the proceedings, the Court does not need to make a final determination on the reasonableness of the requested enhancement award. At the time of the Final Approval, Plaintiff should provide the Court with a stronger showing and support that a $10,000 award is justified.

Plaintiff shall prepare the Proposed Order consistent with this Tentative Ruling. If this ruling is affirmed, the hearing on the Motion for Final Approval of the Class Action Settlement is set for November 13, 2026, at 8:30 a.m. in Department 14.

2